Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mr. Shaw introduced H.R. 3034, a bill to allow the U.S. Customs Service limited and temporary access to the Customs COBRA User Fee Account to fund, through September 30, 1998, up to 50 inspectional positions for processing passengers arriving on commercial vessels--cruise ships--in Florida. As of September 30, 1997, Customs no longer collects user fees from passengers arriving from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Current law states that the funds can only be used to enhance inspectional service at ports if Customs COBRA User fees are collected. Thus, Customs may not use any money from the Customs COBRA User Fee Account to fund positions in those ports to enhance the inspection of passengers who arrive from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. As of September 30, 1997, fees are no longer collected from cruise ship passengers arriving in Florida from Caribbean countries. Therefore, Customs no longer has the authority to access the user fee account to pay for inspectional positions previously acquired in these Florida ports. Forty-three of these positions have been added in Florida ports where user fees had previously been collected from cruise ship passengers. Mr. Shaw's bill would give Customs limited access to the user fee account to fund these 43 positions, plus an additional 7 positions to account for any growth in the cruise ship industry in fiscal year 1998. The bill has no pay-go impact because revenues to fund these inspectors would come from the Customs COBRA User Fee Account, under the current permanent, indefinite appropriation. Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize three important points with regard to the decision of the Committee on Ways and Means to allow this bill to come to the floor under suspension of the rules. First, this is being done with the understanding that the committee will be treated without prejudice in the future as to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar provisions. This bill should not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the committee in the future. Second, the bill provides limited relief for the processing of cruise ship passengers in Florida only. The bill sets no precedent for providing Customs access to the Customs COBRA User Fee Account to fund inspectional positions for the processing of passengers arriving on commercial vessels arriving at any port of entry outside of Florida. Third, the committee's decision to allow the provision to be considered under suspension of the rules shall set no precedent for allowing additional access to the user fee account after fiscal year 1998. The Subcommittee on Trade intends to review several issues involving Customs user fees next year, including H.R. 2262, my bill to reform the overtime and nighttime pay reform system for Customs inspectors. I would finally like to add that the Customs Service could fund these and other positions through its salaries and expenses account. The bill will therefore provide Customs additional time to develop a plan by which current and future cruise ship passengers can be processed as part of Customs ongoing commitment to process passengers as efficiently as possible. The bill will provide short-term relief for the cruise ship industry in Florida, the group most immediately impacted by Customs' failure to develop such a plan.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Tadahiro Sekimoto, who is the Chairman of the Board of NEC Corp. His goal of peace, progress and prosperity for all is a goal we all share. Mr. Speaker, his statement offers a vision for the multinational corporation in the next millennium which I believe will be of interest to political and business leaders in our country and around the world: Calling World Leaders to Action to Address the New Roles and Responsibilities of the Multinational Corporation in the New Century (By Dr. Tadahiro Sekimoto) As we approach the start of a new millennium, it is--I believe--time for those of us in positions of international stewardship to help illuminate the way to a new century of peace, progress, and prosperity for all. Great Change During the half century that I have been in the information technology (IT) industry, I have been privileged to be an eye-witness to its creation of astounding change, perhaps the most dramatic of which has been the world's rapid advance toward a more universal society characterized by the accelerated movement of labor goods, technology, and capital across frontiers. This 20th Century phenomenon is making us increasingly dependent upon each other because it is dissvoling the largely arbitrary boundaries between many of the societal underpinnings--especially nation states, and thus economies-- with which we and our ancestors have lived more or less comfortably over the past millennia. To what can we attribute the steady disintegration of these once very convenient lines of demarcation, this new mobility and rapidly expanding cross-border and hence cross-cultural interaction? Clearly, advances in science and technology, including IT, are playing significant roles in the unfolding drama-roles so enduring, in fact, that they are producing a new economy (and its resultant new society) and requiring us to write another chapter in the history of our civilization. This new episode, which some call the ``Information Age'', is dramatically transforming, largely for the better, most aspects of daily life in most parts of the world. But perhaps even more important, it is leading to a new society that will be based on an ability to understand and respond to the needs and wishes of individuals everywhere in the world. Also Great Challenges With the expansion of this new information economy and society throughout the universe will come radical new roles for our world institutions, including companies like mine. But what are these new roles going to be? How will they transform our multinational giants, the successful management of which challenges us greatly even today? What will this enterprise be like in the future? What should it be like? By no means do I believe that I have crystal-clear vision of the future. But I have begun trying to understand it and its urgent demands. And in my mind, the most compelling challenge of the international corporation in the 21st century is the need to maintain a concern for the environment. It is clear that the well-being of all people go hand-in hand with economic progress. And from my vantage point it seems that additional advances in science and technology are key to producing this much needed harmony that is increasingly important to our survival. More effective management of competition's chaotic expansion is the second most serious new responsibility that the Information Age is requiring us to assume. And I believe that cooperation at all levels--including those of global, regional, national, local, and corporate--is the essential element here. World institutions will simply have to invent and engage in novel forms of collaboration at the same time they compete. In the business community we refer to this more contemporary and useful way of operating as the ``complementarian'' mode where sometimes we compete, sometimes we cooperate, and more often we do both. The mutually beneficial working relationship between the IT industries of the United States and Japan aptly illustrates this complementarian concept. The U.S. is strong in software. This is not surprising: America's economy has been information-intensive for some time. Augmenting your strength in software is Japan's power in hardware-reflective of our highly advanced position in the Industrial Age. For some time now the two industries and countries have astutely engaged in a symbiotic association that is probably typical of what will occur much more frequently in the complementarian climate of the 21st century. The third most serious challenge facing us at the start of the next millennium is, in my view, figuring out how world institutions--including corporations--can most effectively manage their new roles. The perceptive business executive knows what his organization's responsibilities are today. But what will they be in the decades ahead as the information economy and society broaden and inform more and more aspects of our lives? One answer is that in the 21st century the multinational enterprise can no longer be parochial; its mission of service must encompass its entire community because, to paraphrase Adam Smith, it too--just like other world institutions-- exists to serve and strengthen its societies. So the multinational's notion of corporate stewardship will have to change--as it already has in some more enlightened U.S. companies. Increasingly, all of us business leaders are going to have to expand our philanthropy considerably beyond where we are accustomed to giving. If, for instance, our contributions have been exclusively economic, we might need to move into social, technical and other cultural and geographic spheres as well. New Management Strategies are Essential Despite these and other seriously demanding challenges--to which I have given decades of thought--I believe strongly in mankind's ability to successfully manage this increasing interaction among nations and the resultant Information Age for the benefit of humanity, both our generation and the generations that follow us. Some large corporations that reach well beyond their own national boundaries have already started creating and employing different, more suitable management strategies for the future, and I am gratified to report that mine is one of them. The highly complex nature of our business as a leading international IT supplier and multi-media pioneer has required us to learn how to operate much more efficiently and effectively. For instance, in recent decades we have successfully situated many corporate functions, including R & D and manufacturing, in what we consider the optimum locations in the world. In like manner, we have bought and sold in the world's most suitable markets--wherever they are. I am gratified to say that this optimization of resources has given us a strong competitive edge. It is also an idea that has broad application: We use it to help us put the right person in the right job--again, wherever in the world that position is located. One of the advantages of this policy: We are developing another competitive benefit--that of building a management team composed of the most capable professional from a number of countries around the world, not just from Japan alone. And as you might expect, this new troop is enriching everything we do with all the unique strengths of the many and diverse national cultures represented in it. In the process of deploying the concept of resource optimization throughout our company--and puzzling over what the 21st century might demand of us in terms of new management strategies--we were struck by the growing need to recognize both the requirements of the group, or the whole, and the more personalized focus of the new era. But now to join the two seemingly divergent positions in compatible fashion? From the Greek words holos, meaning, ``whole'' and on, signifying ``individual'', I coined the term ``holonic'' to indicate the need to harmonize the two. So today we are successfully employing ``holonic'' management to assure the prosperity of the corporation as a whole while simultaneously respecting and honoring the sovereignty of the individual--whether that individual is a company subsidiary, a company employee, or a member of one of the hundreds of communities around the world in which we operate. And this more sympathetic, complementary management strategy has become another competitive advantage for us. Experience has taught us that one of the keys to employing it profitably is the sharing of information. Another is establishing and nurturing a culture of the term or the subsidiary or the corporation--so that members have a meaningful concept around which to rally and with pride produce something they consider significant. In fact, these two notions--the sharing or information and the development of a mutually-engaging culture--have become so important, at least from our observation, that we have added them to the three resources we have historically identified and valued: People, property and money. And I am convinced that the successful 21st century leaders--of nation states, city states, suburban and rural communities, corporations, and the like--are going to be those who best assure and most favorable, enriched conjunction of the whole and the individual. I am also confident that information technology will continue to provide opportunities for world leaders to exchange ideas and share resources and will pay an increasingly significant role in the enhancement of all our lives. My Call to Action--A new Dialogue for the New Century Now you know something of my thoughts about the upcoming millennium and my efforts to position my company and my country advantageously for it. This leads me to share with you my great interest in building on the wisdom of world leaders from essential disciplines, by bringing us together to identify vastly more creative ways to help all people achieve their desired goals in the new century. It used to be that the complementary and productive partnership between and among business and financial leaders, elected politicians and government officials was sufficient to assure prosperity and peace. The now seriously-outdated nature of this limited collaboration has inspired us to consider an expansion--actually a doubling of the size of the group to include distinguished heads of labor, academic, and the media as well. I refer to this new alliance as the ``neo-hexagon''. And I am issuing invitations to neohexagon leaders throughout the world, in developing as well as developed countries, to join me in dialogue focused on identifying the best management practices for the 21st century and preparing our organizations and our societies for the better tomorrow that our grandchildren and their great-grandchildren deserve.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, this body has spent a good deal of time in recent years trying to come up with ways to balance the budget--much of it to no avail. The good news is that the Treasury Department announced that the end of the 1997 fiscal year brought the smallest budget deficit in ages--$22.6 billion. The bad news is that Washington can claim little credit for this deficit reduction. The credit should go to American taxpayers prospering in a strong and dynamic U.S. economy and pumping more revenue into the Treasury than many Washington policy wonks predicted. Nevertheless, a balanced budget is finally in sight for the first time since 1969. Now that Washington may soon see a budget surplus, a number of bills have been introduced in Congress in an effort to contribute to the debate on how that surplus should be spent. The leading bills propose to use part of the surplus to pay down the enormous Federal debt while using the rest to provide tax relief. I have cosponsored one of these bills and believe very strongly that we must protect the budget surplus from Washington's big spenders. It is in this context that I would encourage Members to look at a bill I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 2329, the National Dividend Act of 1997. The proposal upon which this bill has been crafted has been around for some time, and the concept has been favorably received by President Ronald Reagan, the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform--the Kemp Commission--and various congressional committees. The dividend plan has, over the years, enjoyed the support of a bipartisan and ideologically diverse group of Members. At one time, it was introduced by our former colleague Guy Vander Jagt and, most recently, our colleague Billy Tauzin introduced the plan. I was a cosponsor of these bills and now Mr. Tauzin has joined me as a cosponsor of H.R. 2329. The National Dividend Act of 1997 is the latest incarnation of a plan developed by John H. Perry, Jr., a businessman and philanthropist. Mr. Perry's idea was to give Americans an incentive to be involved in the Federal budget process by giving voters a National Dividend once the Federal budget is in balance. Much like a profitable business shares its economic successes with its shareholders in the form of dividends, the National Dividend will share the economic prosperity of a balanced budget and fiscal restraint with those Americans who participated in the democratic process which led to the balanced budget. To accomplish this goal, the bill first establishes a cap on Federal spending at the current level for 5 years or until a surplus is finally achieved. Based on the current budget estimates, Congress could bring about a surplus as early as next year. Next, the bill creates a National Dividend Trust Fund by setting aside tax dollars from the general fund of the Treasury eventually equal to the revenue raised by the corporate income tax as well as selected other excise and tariff revenues. Once the fund reaches 100 percent of the specified revenue, disbursements will be given in equal amounts to all registered voters in years in which the Federal budget is in surplus. If the budget is not balanced, revenues in the fund can be used to eliminate the deficit. The bill also not only eliminates the tax on corporate dividends, but also the National Dividend. To keep a future Congress from abusing this program, safeguards have been built into the plan. First, the corporate tax rate will be frozen at its current level. Second, a two-thirds majority vote of both Houses will be necessary to increase taxes. Short of a declared war, a future tax and spend Congress will be restrained from raising taxes simply to finance the National Dividend Trust Fund. I commend the National Dividend Act of 1997 to the attention of my colleagues and urge them to support the bill as we work to put the Nation's fiscal house in order.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Small Business Investment and Growth Act which will provide much-needed tax relief to small business in America. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I strenuously objected to the tax increases of 1990 and 1993, knowing of the severe negative economic impact these taxes would have on American small businesses and their employees. I realize that, in macroeconomic terms, the U.S. economy is quite strong in spite of those tax increases--however, we could do much better. Americans are facing record-high tax burdens. Every year, taxpayers are working more days for Washington and its bureaucrats and fewer days for themselves and their families. For small businesses, the greatest creators of jobs and economic growth in America, high tax rates have hampered their ability to sustain high rates of growth and prosperity. To understand how small businesses are struggling with taxes, allow me to explain the consequences of the 1990 and 1993 attempts to get the wealthy in America to pay their fair share of the Federal tax burden. With those tax increases, the maximum marginal tax rate for individuals was raised from 28 percent to 39.6 percent. However, what was lost on these ``soak the rich'' policy wonks is that small businesses owners pay their business taxes as individuals. In other words, a typical struggling small business owner will pay himself a salary, pay his employees and all his other business expenses, and then pay taxes on the combination of his salary and the profits of the business. In the case of S corporations, the shareholders of the company, typically family members who work for the business, each pay the taxes for the business at their individual tax rates. Now keep in mind that the highest marginal individual tax rates are 36 percent, while the corporate tax rate for similar-sized businesses is 34 percent. The maximum corporate tax rate is 35 percent. So, thanks to the ``soak the rich'' tax policies, small businesses pay higher tax rates than better financed corporations. In fact, a Joint Economic Committee report found that President Clinton's 1993 tax hike fell disproportionally on small businesses, not the wealthy. And in surveys of S corporations since their shareholders' tax rates increased, they report that they cannot reinvest as much money into their companies as they did before the tax hike. Reinvesting translates into more jobs. In fact, successful American small businesses have been able to create three to four new jobs for every additional $100,000 they retain in the business. The Small Business Investment and Growth Act proposes to end this government-created inequity. My bill has simple goals--to promote S corporation reinvestment, to generate economic growth--i.e., jobs--and to provide for tax rate reductions for all S corporation owners, including qualified personal service corporations. To accomplish these goals, the bill will lower the Federal tax rates paid by S corporation shareholders to no more than 34 percent when the S corporation reinvests its earnings in the business, or when the earnings are distributed to the shareholders for the purposes of making tax payments. This lower tax rate would be applicable only to the first $5 million in taxable income of the S corporation. This bill is a similar, but expanded, version of a bill I introduced in the last Congress. Although this latest version will provide tax relief to more S corporations, I want to make it clear that I would prefer to provide tax relief to all businesses. In fact, I see these taxes as just another cost of doing business which is passed along to the individual consumer/taxpayer. Thus, it is a secondary tax which should be eliminated. This legislation takes an important first step toward reducing burdensome taxes on small business and encouraging S corporation owners and managers to reinvest income into their business, thereby creating more jobs and expanding economic growth. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor it.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to express my support for H.R. 2513, legislation containing two important tax provisions, versions of which were contained in the landmark Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provisions in question were line item vetoed by President Clinton on August 11, and today, we are endeavoring to pass slightly modified versions of the original proposals. One provisions of the bill relates to the sale of stock of a corporation that owns a processing facility of any cooperative which is engaged in marketing agriculture or horticultural products. This matter is of great concern and interest to the farm community in this country and it is hoped this version of the proposal can now be enacted. The other item in this legislation, and the provision to which I would like to devote the bulk of my remarks, relates to foreign affiliates of U.S. financial services companies. Under the language contained in H.R. 2513, these affiliates including banks, securities firms, and insurance and finance companies would not be taxed by the United States on their active trade or business income until that income is repatriated to the U.S. parent company or shareholders. In other words, this bill would equalize the treatment of income earned by U.S.-based financial services companies operating abroad with the active income earned by most other U.S.-based companies operating in international markets. As chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, even more important to me is the fact that the bill will level the playing field for the U.S. financial services industry vis a vis their foreign competitors. As one of the Members who worked to include this provision in the Taxpayer Relief Act, I was disappointed with the President's line item veto. Therefore, I very much would like to make progress in this effort to remove a competitive obstacle imposed by our international tax rules on the overseas operations of U.S. financial services firms. Language in H.R. 2513 is intended to replace the vetoed provision of the Taxpayers Relief Act that was designed to reform the antideferral rules of subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code. In vetoing this measure, the President stated that the ``primary purpose of the provision was proper,'' but the manner in which it was written would have left room for abuses. Although I disagree with the decision of the President to veto this important provision, I am pleased he recognized that reform of the antideferral rules of subpart F represents sound and prudent tax policy. Subsequent to the veto, the financial services firms affected by this bill have worked intensely and closely with the Treasury and the Committee on Ways and Means to address the concerns raised, and I applaud the cooperative effort to come up with an interim solution. However, I must express my disappointment and concern that the bill, at the Treasury's insistence, unjustly singles our securities dealers. As currently drafted H.R. 2513 will force securities dealers to forfeit tax credits on foreign withholding taxes to which they are entitled under current law in order to obtain the benefits granted to other sectors of the financial services industry. These foreign tax credits are crucial to the role U.S. securities firms and banks play as global equities dealers, without which such dealers will not be able to remain competitive overseas. When we adopted section 901(k) of the code in 1997, we did so to forestall abusive trafficking in credits for foreign withholding taxes. We excluded some securities dealers from section 901(k) because those dealers, in the legitimate, ordinary course of their businesses, would almost by necessity run afoul of the simple rules for identifying transactions with trafficking potential. At the same time, we gave the Treasury authority to deal with any abuses by dealers. I have not heard of any evidence that Treasury has in fact identified any problems with section 901(k) to date. Therefore, I frankly must conclude that Treasury's insistence on this trade-off in the current bill reflects an ulterior motive to overturn the dealer exception in section 901(k), although we recently approved that exception by enacting it. Foreign tax credits and tax deferral for certain active overseas income have coexisted and should continue to do so, because each serves a different purpose. Foreign tax credits provide essential protection against double taxation of overseas income for U.S. businesses. Deferral does not provide such protection, but rather treats active overseas income of financial services firms consistently with such income of U.S. industrial firms, and helps to level the playing field with respect to their foreign competitors. It is my firm belief that foreign tax credits and deferral are independent provisions of our international tax regime, and their co-existence is consistent with sound international tax policy. Since the bill before us today would be effective for only 1 year, I strongly urge the Treasury to continue to work together with the securities and banking industries to reach a fair and lasting agreement on a permanent solution that can be enacted next year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2513. This legislation represents sound policy that will enhance the ability of the financial services industry to compete in the global marketplace.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1997 and to encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. This simple and straightforward bill will allow manufacturers of printed wiring boards and printed wiring assemblies, known as the interconnecting industry, to depreciate their production equipment in 3 years rather than the 5 years in current law. Printed wiring boards are those ubiquitous little green boards loaded with tiny wires and microchips which are the nerve centers of electronic items from television sets to computers to mobile phones. The interconnecting industry, as with so much of the electronics industry, has changed dramatically in just the last decade. While the industry was once dominated by large companies, the industry now consists overwhelmingly of small firms, with many of them located in my home State of Illinois. The rapid pace of technological advancement today makes interconnecting manufacturing equipment obsolete in 18 to 36 months--tomorrow's advances will further reduce that time to obsolescence. This makes the interconnecting industry very capital intensive. In fact, capital expenditures totaled $2.1 billion in 1996 and are expected to be $2.3 billion this year. Considering that this is an industry dominated by small U.S. firms competing in ever more competitive world markets, clearly we need a Tax Code that more clearly reflects reality. The depreciation rules found in the Tax Code, of course, have not kept pace with the realities of this dynamic market. The industry currently relies on tax law passed in the 1980's, which was based on 1970's era electronics technology. U.S. competitors in Asia, however, enjoy much more favorable tax treatment as well as direct Government subsidies. We must remove the U.S. Tax Code as an obstacle to growth in this industry. The Printed Circuit Investment Act will take a step in that direction. Quite frankly though, I view this as a very modest step and would like to provide much more generous tax relief to these businesses, considering the fierce competition from foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, the Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1997 will provide modest tax relief to the interconnecting industry and the 250,000 Americans whose jobs rely on the success of this industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in providing this relief by cosponsoring the bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to our distinguished colleague the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 302, I call up the bill (H.R. 2195) to provide for certain measures to increase monitoring of products of the People's Republic of China that are made with forced labor, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2195, a bill to authorize $2 million of appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for the U.S. Customs Service to increase the monitoring and interdiction of products made with forced labor. The funds authorized by H.R. 2195 will allow the Customs Service to enforce two important provisions in the law regarding forced labor products. The Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits the importation of goods, wares, articles, and merchandise which are produced, mined, or manufactured with the use of forced, convict, or indentured labor. Title 18 provides criminal penalties for those who willfully violate these prohibitions. It has been long-standing U.S. policy to prohibit the importation of merchandise made under conditions of forced labor. To show that there is no doubt about our resolve to enforce this prohibition, H.R. 2195, as amended, would reemphasize U.S. policy by authorizing additional resources for the U.S. Customs Service to identify and interdict products made with forced labor by providing a new mechanism for monitoring compliance with the law and by enhancing enforcement of international agreements. Customs already has in place teams of special agents on our borders working actively to prohibit the importation of forced labor products. Customs also has 76 special agents and 26 embassies and consular offices abroad, including three attaches assigned to the U.S. embassy in Beijing. The investigations conducted by these teams have led to criminal proceedings, more than 20 detention orders, and 6 findings of prohibited forced labor importations relating to chain hoists, tea, electric fans, machine presses, zinc-coated wire, artificial flowers, and malleable iron pipe. H.R. 2195 will authorize additional resources for Customs to conduct these investigations and is consistent with our country's historically strong position on this issue. This approach is consistent with historical U.S. trade policy objectives. And on that basis, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2195.

Mr. CRANE. I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit with instructions is not germane to the underlying bill. The fundamental purpose or common thread of the bill is very narrow, and only concerns the monitoring of products made with forced labor. The range of methods employed in the bill is similarly narrow. The motion, however, deals with the reciprocal tariff treatments of the products of China. This is clearly not within the very narrow purpose of this bill. The issue of tariffs is also outside the range of methods employed in the bill. Therefore, the motion to recommit with instructions is not germane, and I urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson].

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act. First, I would like to compliment my Ways and Means colleague, Mr. Portman, who served as a cochairman of the IRS restructuring commission, for his work on this issue. I also want to thank our chairman, Bill Archer, for the prompt committee action on the IRS commission recommendations. My office regularly assists my constituents who have had problems dealing with the IRS and I am quite familiar with the frustrations of taxpayers dealing with this agency. Of course, opposition to paying taxes and a mistrust of government is ingrained in Americans. Before our war of independence, colonists showed their disapproval of a British tax with the Boston tea party. After the Revolution, Americans took on our newly formed government with the whiskey rebellion. While we have not witnessed similar events in recent history, the IRS is easily the most hated agency of the Federal Government. But the hatred of the IRS is not just the hatred of taxes, but a genuine fear of the seemingly unchecked power the IRS wields over taxpayers. Congressional hearings this year have demonstrated that the IRS is an agency out of control. Rather than serving taxpayers, IRS bureaucrats too often make Americans feel like slaves to the government. We know that IRS managers established audit goals for their employees to advance in the agency. In other words, IRS employees performance was evaluated by the amount of money extracted from taxpayers, not by dealing with the merits of each individual taxpayer's return. IRS employees came before Congress only under the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution by their colleagues. Taxpayers from all over the United States told stories of intimidation and clear abuses of power exercised by IRS agents. It is clear that many IRS employees were living up to their ignominious reputation. To the credit of IRS employees, they do have a difficult job. The Internal Revenue Code is thousands of pages of ambiguous laws and regulations which can be interpreted, and often is, any number of ways. This is one of the reasons I have argued for so many years that Congress must scrap the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax that applies the same tax rate to all Americans simply and fairly. Although this bill does not replace the Tax Code, I believe the reforms proposed in the bill, including the establishment of the oversight board will go a long way in addressing some of the problems at the IRS. Now, citizen board members will sit in judgment of the IRS for a change. I am also encouraged that this bill will, in many circumstances, shift the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS. While thieves, murderers, and rapists are innocent until proven guilty in America, taxpayers are assumed guilty by the IRS until they prove themselves innocent. I know my Democrat friend Jim Traficant has worked tirelessly on this issue and has made the point that it took a Republican Congress to actually get this provision put into law. I have proudly supported him in his efforts over the years and thank him for his work. I also want to mention some of the other reforms in this bill. Specifically, the bill will allow taxpayers to get reimbursed for attorney's fees when they prevail against the IRS. Another provision will extend the privilege of confidentiality to conversations with tax accountants who provide the same tax advice that tax attorneys provide. The bill will also protect innocent spouses from tax liability on joint returns when they are unaware of misstatements or misreporting made by the other spouse. Mr. Speaker, clearly the American people are eager to have these reforms. I am glad to see that President Clinton finally got that message and has agreed to support this bill. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2676 and I hope that we can soon see it enacted into law.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I remind my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], that we have been at full employment for two straight years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)